Linking Institutional Partnerships, Community Groups and Rural Livelihood Improvement in Kenya

1
Linking Institutional Partnerships, Community
Groups and Rural Livelihood Improvement in Kenya

• David M. Amudavi
• Dept of Education
• Cornell University

2
Outline of Presentation

• Introduction
• Purpose and Objectives
• Research Question
• Study sites
• Research Methodology
• Contribution of the study
• Tentative Findings
• Emerging issues for consideration

3
Introduction

• Poverty, food insecurity and land degradation
  continue to affect rural communities.
• Potential for building a sense of ownership,
  commitment, accountability and sustainability in
  group activities.
• Recognition of learning as a social enterprise
  mechanisms for capacity building.
• Use of community groups organizations is being
  recognized as a mode of reaching the poor and
  scaling up outreach.

4
Purpose and Objectives

• The purpose of this study is to explore how
  public and private institutions involved in
  agricultural and rural extension could
  effectively partner with rural communities to
  allow a broader access to resources and social
  learning opportunities in order to improve rural
  peoples livelihoods.

5
Objectives of the Study The study aims to fulfil
the following objectives

• Determine how social learning affects rural
  livelihoods.
• Identify the functions and effects of community
  groups on rural livelihoods.
• Characterize effective community groups that
  facilitate improvement of rural livelihoods.
• Identify the functions and effects of
  inter-institutional partnerships with community
  groups.

6
Research question

• First, how can outside institutions/organizations
  effectively partner with rural communities to
  allow a broader access to resources and social
  learning opportunities by a diverse population
  of households to improve livelihoods?
• Second, do effective partnership modalities
  depend on the nature of community groups?

7
Specific Research Questions

• How does social learning affect rural
  livelihoods?
• What are the functions and effects of community
  groups in rural livelihoods?
• What kinds of community groups are most effective
  in improving rural livelihoods?
• How do public and private partnerships influence
  community groups in achieving rural livelihoods?

8
Study Areas
9
(No Transcript)
10
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS

• Public Agencies
• Government Line Ministries.
• Research/Extension
• Educational Institutions.
• Development

• Private Agencies
• NGOs
• CBOs
• Private firms
• Farmer Organizations

• International Donor Agencies e.g.
• ICRAF
• GEF, Plan International
• CARE International

• Religious - Extension/Education - Social -
  Political
• Environmental - Credit/Finance - Recreational -
  Labor
• Productive - Marketing - NRM

LOCAL LEVEL INSTITUTIONS (Community Groups,
Organizations)

• Key resources - Markets
• Information/ technologies - Social Learning

RURAL LIVELIHOODS IMPROVEMENT

• Food security
• Long term yields
• Soil productivity
• Food variety

• Income Generation
• Off-farm diversification
• Intensification
• Commercialization

• NRM
• SWC
• Soil fertility improvement
• Agro forestry technologies

11
Research Methods Qual-Quant methods(a)
Qualitative Methods

• Focus group discussions Groups selected from
  both Focal and Non-focal areas including,
  community-based and supra-community based
  organizations.
• Captured endogenous and exogenous groups.
• Institutional profiles Community identification
  and ranking of institutions at sub-locational
  level.
• Key informant interviews with public and private
  agencies working with rural communities on issues
  of food security, wealth creation, and natural
  resource management.

12
Qualitative Methods Focused on

• Origin of group formation Endogenous or
  exogenous
• Group size
• Group orientation Primary functions and
  responsibilities of groups, benefits of groups
• Group heterogeneity
• Group synergies competition complementarity
• Group (in)stability
• Group leadership
• Group vision
• Institutional partners and the support they
  provide Financial, material, political,
  networking, transport, social learning
  opportunities, capacity building, etc.

13
(b) Quantitative Method Use of questionnaire

• Sampling methods Cluster and simple random
  sampling.
• Sample size A random sample of 480 households
  from the six divisions. 40 households randomly
  selected from each of the 12 sub-locations.
• The sampling frame All the households in the
  sub-locations selected for the study.
• The study population All the households in Embu,
  Vihiga and Baringo.

14
A survey is being conducted to collect data on

• Household socio-economic aspects
• Crop production Types and numbers of livestock
• Food security
• Physical assets
• Learning practice of soil and water
  conservation, soil fertility management practices
  water management
• Livelihood strategies - agricultural and
  non-agricultural activities, incomes and assets

15
Household data contd

• Participation in community-based institutions
• Functions and effects of key community groups
• Social and organizational factors that influence
  formation and effectiveness of community groups
• Community partnership with public and private
  institutions
• Perceptions of quality of extension services
  provided by the different agencies
• Collective action and trust (social environment
  within which groups thrive)

16
Data Collection and Analysis

• The qualitative data has not been thoroughly
  analyzed but preliminary findings will be
  presented.
• Ten enumerators (4 in Vihiga, 3 Baringo, 3 in
  Embu) are currently conducting personal
  interviews with each of the selected households.
• The questionnaire is in English but enumerators
  have received sufficient training to conduct all
  the interviews in either Kiswahili or local
  language to minimize potential translation
  errors.
• Data will be coded and entered into Minitab
  program for analysis.
• Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize
  and interpret data.
• Inferential statistics will be applied for
  correlations, comparisons, and testing some
  hypotheses.

17
Preliminary FindingsFunctions and benefits of
community groups

• Providing social safety nets.
• Enabling undertaking of economic activities (e.g.
  Fruit processing, tea growing, poultry keeping,
  high value horticultural crops, dairy keeping,
  bee-keeping) through saving and lending.
• Home management.
• Water harvesting.
• Source of funds to support families education
  and training.
• Farmer-to-farmer education.

18
Functions of community groups contd

• Reinforcement of community social norms.
• Acting as partners in research and extension with
  national and some international research
  institutions.
• Ensuring food security through food
  diversification as well as adoption of new
  technologies e.g. utilization of traditional
  foods.
• Improved natural resource management (soil
  conservation, soil fertility management
  practices)
• Learning units, among others.
• Create structures that allow for the
  participation of a wide range of community
  members in livelihood initiatives.

19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
Group sustainability Seems to depend on several
factors including

• Group maturity group size too large groups
  present coordination problems, attract
  irrelevancies. Too small do not benefit from
  economies of scale
• Group cohesiveness trust building
• Enforceable rules and regulations
• Incentive for commitment to group goals and
  activities
• Capacity of members to meet group obligations
• Level of shares to group accounts
• Accountability to planned tasks
• Information sharing
• Social capital, and consensual building.

24
Inter-institutional partnership

• Partnership-building tool for community
  empowerment and social change -has primary
  contribution to the basket of participatory
  approaches.
• The preliminary findings suggest that benefit
  sharing and generation must be seen as a process
  over time, which should become more rather than
  less attractive as expectations continue to rise.

25
Partnerships contd

• The examples illustrate that despite the fact
  that the social actors in the three districts
  come from different cultural histories and that
  their agendas and learning position them in
  different locations, they share a commitment in
  making an improved future for the rural
  communities.
• This is consistent with most of the groups
  vision of reducing poverty among the group
  members, their families and the general
  community.

26
Nature of successful partnerships

• Characterized by
• Centralized planning
• Shared roles and responsibilities technical,
  financial and logistics
• Accountability an transparency
• Participation of women and diverse community
  sectors
• Needs and assets analysis through participatory
  approaches
• A coordinating or lead agency
• Time management and setting targets

27
Successful partnerships contd

• Harmonizing remuneration rates for staff from
  different agencies
• Process matching outcomes
• Credibility of social actors
• Participatory monitoring and evaluation
• Capacity building- leadership, managerial skills,
  and
• Documentation of activities

28
Challenges to groups potential in livelihood
improvement

• Lack of resources
• Limited land sizes making it impossible to expand
  production beyond certain levels
• Marketing problems financial, human,
  input,output.
• Poor infrastructure
• Lack of expertise in management of group
  activities
• Poor leadership
• Economic dependence on external support
• High interest rates by formal financial
  institutions making it impossible for many small
  farmers to utilize long-term loans that they so
  much need
• Political interference among others

29
Expected Contributions of the Study

• Knowledge on how grassroots organizations emerge,
  get sustained and create wealth.
• Strategies of capacity building by examining
  current and strategic opportunities.
• Lessons for extension and rural development
  practitioners towards changing trends and
  challenges in extension delivery to make
  extension more pro-poor oriented.
• Community group extension policy Empowerment of
  rural communities.

30
Some Questions do be addressed at the end of the
study

• Do community groups matter in rural development?
• Do groups matter in issues of food security? Who
  are the food (in)secure?
• What is the potential of groups as catalysts in
  poverty reduction?
• How should institutional partnerships be
  structured to expand the horizons of community
  groups to improve their livelihoods?